Tag Archives: Politics

Millionaire Corner surveys investors to obtain insights into their financial needs and preferences. Research is conducted in partnership with Spectrem Group, the premier market research and consulting firm in the wealth and retirement industries. This educational infographic explains the “Fiscal Cliff,” and offers possible solutions.

There’s no denying that we’re a much more mobile nation than we were four years ago. That switch to mobile is affecting not only how we communicate with each other, but also how we engage politically.

As of late September, a reported 88% of registered voters had a cell phone of some kind, with 53% of those voters toting around smartphones. For this year’s election, one in 10 voters made a political contribution via text message or a mobile app, and 37% of voters used their mobile phone for political information and discussion with others.

Payvia, a company that powered political contributions for the Obama and Romney campaigns, created this infographic breaking down some of the numbers from this year, and making some predictions on what we can expect with the 2016 election.

Take a look at their findings below, then give us your thoughts in the comments — how do you think mobile will have evolved by the 2016 election?

During this year’s U.S. election, candidates channeled the power of apps and text messaging to appeal to voters, promote their party platform and fundraise.

CallerSmart analyzed how much telephones — smartphones, texts and anonymous phone banks — are bringing democracy to a digital environment. As it turns out, President Barack Obama or Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney could thank cellphones for being elected on Nov. 6.

Obama and Romney developed personalized mobile apps to tap into a more connected constituency. The president’s app was more popular on Androids, while Romney’s was downloaded more on iPhones. What’s more, this year’s presidential election is the first to allow donations via text message.

For more on the use of mobile in the 2012 election, check out the infographic below:

…Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was “immoral” for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.

— Obama declared a state of emergency in Virginia late Monday, ordering federal assistance on top of state and local efforts. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell had asked for a federal emergency declaration, which would free up funding. By the way, McDonnell is not the only Republican Governor asking for federal help. Ask Chris Christie in New Jersey.

After Mr. Romney’s 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy.

–Mittens180 at his best again–

Living in NYC, I am wondering how the state of New York should master all the burdens of “Sandy”. And if the state would have to, how would turn this out for the people.

In a week the hammer comes down and we go to elect the President for the next 4 years. Sometimes, when you are not sure on how to vote, life sends you a message.

Over the past 18 month Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have put their ideas on the table. They have explained how the country needs to save money on the expense of those that depend on the government and have made 180 turns when it comes to stand for it in public. As “Sandy” clearly shows, those that are depending on the government are not only the poor. When it comes down to it, 90% of us are depending on government support, one way or the other. It is easy to deny the fact when the sun is shining and no emergency is visible, but when the emergency occurs, we all ask for it, Republican or Democrat. Don’t be fooled by Romney and Ryan (I am not saying Republicans), both of them are out there to take personal advantage on the expense of all of us.

As election day approaches, you might be getting sick of the political bickering in your News Feed. You can try to fight it, but political participation on social media is contagious.

Since 2004, politicians like Howard Dean and Ron Paul have been using social and new media to advance their causes and put themselves in front of younger voters who aren’t just tech-savvy, they’re tech-centric. Facebook and Twitter are powerful tools for spreading information and news, as Barack Obama used to his advantage in his 2008 bid for the presidency.

But Facebook can do more than just familiarize voters with a candidate or let them “Like” a campaign page. For the younger demographic of new voters, social media can be a push to the ballot.

SEE ALSO: Social Is the Secret Weapon in Local Politics

A study out of the University of California found that social messages functioned as highly effective reminders to vote. When pictures of friends appeared in the messages, potential voters were more inspired to take action. Altogether, the study directly influenced the 2010 midterm elections by inspiring more than 300,000 voters to hit the polls. In the end, all that political bickering might only increase the chances of higher voter turnout in the long run.

Check out this infographic from Online College Courses to learn more about the way social media and politics are merging in 2012.

Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is going to be elected as President of the United States of American in a couple weeks. The recent debates have been very entertaining to say the least.

With Facebook hitting one billion users and Twitter registering at about 500 million, we here at Wallaroo Media thought we’d take a dive into the presidential candidates’ social media profiles. We found some very interesting data. Do you think that the information below can be used to predict a winner in this year’s election?

You’ve probably seen the results of dozens of election polls by now, but what about research specifically concentrating on social media users? How will they be voting in the U.S. presidential election coming up on Nov. 6? To find out, market research firm Lab42 surveyed 500 U.S. social media users.

In the survey, respondents were asked who they planned to vote for, and in an interesting twist, who they’ll be voting against. The survey digs deeper, finding out if spouses agree on presidential candidates, which issues have the most impact on voters’ decisions, and who is just not going to vote at all.

The most significant findings are about the closely watched independents, those who say they aren’t affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties. According to the survey, the race is nowhere near over for denizens of social media, with significant percentages still undecided, especially those who aren’t registered. One statistic that made us laugh: 7% of registered independents have changed their minds four or more times.

And really, 29% of the respondents didn’t even know what “GOP” stands for…? Ouch.

By the way, if you’re having trouble making up your mind, here’s a powerful tool, I Side With, a website that gives you a detailed questionnaire and lets you discover how your political views match up with the candidates.

The survey was conducted Oct. 2-4, 2012 with 500 Facebook and Twitter users responding. A lot has happened since Oct. 4, the day after the first debate in which Obama’s performance was widely panned. However, the next two debates were seen as mostly wins for the Obama campaign, so it’s possible these results could somewhat balance out. And, according to a spokesperson from Lab42, “The majority of respondents took the survey after the first debate, and I think the only stat that may have changed is the undecided vote, which will continue to change up until the election.”

What do you think? Does this survey reflect your impression of the voting landscape in social media?

“We just made history.” That Nov. 5, 2008 tweet from the campaign of Barack Obama capped off the first presidential election of the social media age. Four years earlier, Howard Dean had begun to reveal the power of the Internet for fundraising and organizing in his losing effort, but it was the 2008 Obama campaign that really demonstrated social media’s power to be transformative of the political process. And yet, social media as we know it today was in its infancy.

The Twitter that Obama spoke to the day after he became President-Elect had around 5 million users — only a quarter of the total number of followers the President now has on just his own account. Facebook in 2008 was approaching 150 million users worldwide, a number that has swelled to almost a billion today.

Four years in Internet time is an eternity, and the landscape of social media has predictably changed in profound ways. Social may still not be a fully mature medium — none of its major players have yet hit the decade mark — but it is clearly no longer just a throw-in. A recent study from branding agency Digitas found that 88% of U.S. adults on social media are registered voters, and that over half will use social media to learn about the presidential election. It’s no wonder that in the campaign offices of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, digital strategists have been given a seat at the big kids’ table.

Yet for all the talk of social media’s potential power as a political tool, for all the millions of followers and thousands of status updates, the Pew Research Center finds that the candidates aren’t actually very social. “Neither campaign made much use of the social aspect of social media,” reported Pew in August. It seems that the campaigns are using social media as just another broadcast channel — blasting out partisan messages, and only taking very few opportunities to actually engage with fans, followers and voters.

So if social media ends up being another one-way advertising medium, like print, radio or television, is it really a game changer? What effect is social media having on the election of 2012?

Politics Transformed: The High Tech Battle for Your Vote is an in-depth look at how social media and digital tech is changing the way we choose our leaders. In it, Mashable reporters uncover how the campaigns are utilizing massive stores of data gathered through social networks to better target political advertising, how crowdfunding could shake up campaign finance, and we meet the masterminds shaping the digital best practices for electoral politics. We report on how watchdog groups are using social media to protect the vote, why social media has put even more heat on candidates to stay on-message, and ask whether voting over the Internet will ever be safe.

In spite of its massive and unprecedented growth, we’re only just beginning to figure out what it means to be social online, and political strategists are still in the early stages of figuring out what social media can and can’t do. The trend is clear, however: digital will be an ever more important factor as each new election cycle rolls around. We can’t know yet what the future might hold for social media and politics, but here’s how social is changing things right now.

Hunger Reads: Obama’s Mind Games and How To Succeed When You’re Running for Office

So you’re stuck in line at Chipotle, bored, behind on your news-reading—yet not exactly jonesing for another rehash of the headlines. Enter the Hunger Reads, our daily compendium of the political stories we think you’ll actually enjoy reading. (At least more than reading the take-out menu over and over.)

If a president misreads his moment, it can throw his presidency off course. Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court is perhaps the most famous example of a serious political blunder. But many trip right out of the gate. Bill Clinton pushed to allow gays to serve in the military at the beginning of his first term, ending his political honeymoon about as soon as it started. In the first months of George W. Bush’s presidency, either due to a lack of attention or respect, Vermont Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords abandoned the Republican Party, handing control of the Senate to the Democrats. Obama continued to back the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle for a Cabinet post despite the controversy over his unpaid taxes. Later Obama admitted he was blind to the conflict between his promise to run a White House with no special-interest influence and the loophole he was creating for his friend Daschle.

A president who sees the possibilities of the moment can rack up achievements that seemed foreclosed. According to Robert Caro’s account in The Path to Power, Johnson knew instinctively after John F. Kennedy’s assassination that he could use the slain president’s memory to pile up successes in Congress. Caro quotes Johnson discussing the mechanics of his strategy: “I had to take the dead man’s program and turn it into a martyr’s cause.” When Johnson addressed Congress days after Kennedy’s death, he did just that: “[No] eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.”

Voters need to appreciate these currents almost as much as presidents in order to accurately assess a president’s political performance or a challenger’s promises. How steep was the opposition that a president faced? How boxed in was his agenda by the unexpected emergencies of the day? Did these fire alarms increase his political capital or drain it? Is the challenger offering pie-in-the-sky promises? Will his proposals face public fatigue, or are people hungry for sweeping change?

Why do Millennials vote? What do they care about? Where do the get their news? And most importantly, who would they rather be stranded on a deserted island with? We posed these questions, and more, to Millennials in our 8095 PluggedIN community.